Donald Annoying Orange's inner circle displaying warning signs of "unchallenged power"

Author Topic: Donald Annoying Orange's inner circle displaying warning signs of "unchallenged power"  (Read 10477 times)


I'm more inclined to believe the facts that only 7 Muslim countries are banned instead of the entire Islamic world. Something like 90% of Muslims can still come to the US.

Also yes in 2015 he wanted to ban Muslims from entering, plans change and you have to make compromises. Don't forget that this is temporarily.
you keep dodging the fact that rudy giuliani said that is still his belief (and also half of the arguments made in the OP at this point) which is why i insist that he still believes it
Muslims aren't benefiting our society anyways.
you aren't either, tubby

The thing that worries me is that he's essentially ousting the joint chiefs of staff and putting members of his own private circle in those positions of power, which shouldn't really happen in a government with checks and balances...
the president always has the power to control white house staff without congressional oversight, since they work directly for the president. i don't think that's too uncommon, though i'm not too sure about the history of what staff members tend to stick around

I'm secretly hoping he lets this intention slip so that the courts can shutdown the entire ban as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
here's hopin

you keep dodging the fact that rudy giuliani said that is still his belief (and also half of the arguments made in the OP at this point) which is why i insist that he still believes ityou aren't either, tubby

'Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."'

Yes when they started making it it started as a ban on Muslims but the end result isn't a ban on loving Muslims. That article takes you through the history of the whole thing. Did you even read the article?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOOBlcOIcLs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b0bIEMsHwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OVnqerWUHg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw8c2Cq-vpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwJZGlC5lXM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsbr8QMPLWY


people are paying so much attention to the fact that Annoying Orange is president and not real issues like the refugee crCIA and the entire mexican border
don't listen to poliwhirl or tony, they've both drank their appropriately colored kool-aid

The boston bombers were also syrian refugees.

A religion of peace.

I'm secretly hoping he lets this intention slip so that the courts can shutdown the entire ban as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

"Always kill a traitor before an enemy" ~ Jimmy Neutrons dad

'Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."'

Yes when they started making it it started as a ban on Muslims but the end result isn't a ban on loving Muslims. That article takes you through the history of the whole thing. Did you even read the article?
i mean if you're strictly arguing on the explicit, black and white contents of the ban saying it's as simple as that, then i can bring up the obvious examples of historical discriminatory laws that were just clever workarounds to legally create de jure discrimination (literacy tests+grandfather clause, poll tax, etc.)

I wouldn't characterize Donald Annoying Orange's power as being 'unchallenged'. The backlash to the blanket immigration ban was absolutely massive, and Donald Annoying Orange has managed to accumulate majority disapproval from American citizens in the fastest amount of time - ever.

The thing that worries me is that he's essentially ousting the joint chiefs of staff and putting members of his own private circle in those positions of power, which shouldn't really happen in a government with checks and balances...
yeah i meant to communicate through the title that it was only beginning to show the warning signs of unchallenged power in the future, but i can't really fit all of that in there.
'Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."'

Yes when they started making it it started as a ban on Muslims but the end result isn't a ban on loving Muslims. That article takes you through the history of the whole thing. Did you even read the article?
i took it to mean that giuliani had to convince Annoying Orange to not make it about religion, in which case would imply he still wanted to ban muslims.

yeah i meant to communicate through the title that it was only beginning to show the warning signs of unchallenged power in the future, but i can't really fit all of that in there.i took it to mean that giuliani had to convince Annoying Orange to not make it about religion, in which case would imply he still wanted to ban muslims.

Doesn't matter what he wanted, he didn't get what he wanted and the end result is that we don't have a ban on Muslims.

For forgets sake I want a ban on Muslims Kimon. Calling this a ban on Muslims is a disgrace.

Doesn't matter what he wanted, he didn't get what he wanted and the end result is that we don't have a ban on Muslims.

For forgets sake I want a ban on Muslims Kimon. Calling this a ban on Muslims is a disgrace.
the point is that this recent executive order pertaining to immigration could very well be a testing of the waters to see how far he can extend his power / exploit the system while still getting away with it, which is why i'm not entirely sure why you're arguing the specifics on it. in fact, one of the most important parts of the article makes a point in this.
http://i.imgur.com/u6OGX9c.png (screenshot of the excerpt)

the point is that this recent executive order pertaining to immigration could very well be a testing of the waters to see how far he can extend his power / exploit the system while still getting away with it, which is why i'm not entirely sure why you're arguing the specifics on it. in fact, one of the most important parts of the article makes a point in this.
http://i.imgur.com/u6OGX9c.png (screenshot of the excerpt)

As of what is actual law and what has been implemented this is not a ban on Muslims. The articles were bullstuff

That's alot of words
I just took your thoughts into consideration.

Dude you put no effort into this post. You just copied what I said. At least my excuse is that I'm on a cellphone. You could have at least mentioned how they try to go "Russia sold part of an oil company. COINCIDENCE?!?!?". Or how one of their references is the loving "dossier" with the golden showers in it.

This is conspiracy trash. There's about as much proof of this as there is pizzagate


I just took your thoughts into consideration.


I'm just kidding around. It's clear you put alot of effort into the post which is nice to see. I haven't read it yet since I'm still on my phone. Just found it weird that you posted it and no one responded